quote: Pete, both SNL and Trudeau skewered Bubba mercilessly. It was de-riguer for establishment liberals. Remember how the NYT went after every scandal like Kenneth Starr on steroids?

Bill Clinton was actually pretty good fodder for comedians. There was enough there that you could really go to town. He wasn't the manna from heaven like George W. Bush, but late-night comedy didn't starve under his watch.

Obama, by contrast, is going to be the death of political comedy. The gains comedians made under the Bush years are not sustainable in the long run. The Dubya comedy bubble is going to burst very soon, and political comedy is going to be plunged into a recession as guys like John Stewart practically starve for material.

Frankly, I'm not sure John Stewart can survive without Bush. For as long as John Stewart has been famous, Bush has been his bread and butter. I don't see how he can sustain himself cracking jokes about Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Seriously, what is this guy going to talk about once Bush is gone? He had better pray that Sarah Palin sticks around and takes over leadership of the Republican party, because that's about his only hope of survival.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Clearly you, along with Silver, have never read the definition of a 'push-poll'...

Dude, I've written push polls. Zogby's lying through his teeth because he's been paid off. The poll is unsound in a dozen ways -- but, unfortunately, I can't demonstrate more than a dozen because Zogby doesn't have the guts to expose the rest of his bad methodology.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200807:54 AM
Tom Do you even know what a push poll is? If you did you would understand that just because you select a single demographic based on politics and ask them general political questions about the just past election does not equate to a push poll. John Zogby's statement as to methodology would also quash your contention. A further refutation of your claim would be to look at the methodology you have already declared replete with 12 systemic errors at least and show me where he did not allow for bias or adjust for possible bias.

Sorry but the fact is, as we have had several threads on it related to media, bias, and the general level of intelligent thought that went into most voters' selection of Obama- it should not surprise you that a significant chunk of the 50 odd million people who voted for him knew almost nothing about the guy.

If a repetition of threads declaring Bush is a shrub is enough to settle the argument as far as liberals are concerned, then be not surprised when the conservative side offers up actual data and systemic proof that the Obama voters were essentially ballot zombies, voting for change with a smile on their face but unable to identify a single substantive political agenda supported by Obama.

I am so shocked that the liberals are already having a problem with the eventual legacy of Obama. We can't even bring up the fact that his margin of victory was small, made up of zombies, and didn't represent an historic turnout of overwhelming proportions.

Simply put- Obama got enough zombies strung together in the fifty largest metro areas of the country. He got in on a welfare/social security/city services vote. The broader issues didn't matter to these people.

Well the people were idiots, Zogby's poll provides a sliver of proof, and you guys get scared and declare "push polling".

Yet this is unable to be shown by any definition of the term in regard to poling.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200808:43 AM
Unless I misunderstand the definition of a push poll (which goes to the motivation of asking the questions as much as to their content) then this would seem NOT to be a push poll.

However, the poll does seem to be designed to get the answers that the designer wanted to achieve. This has nothing to do with how the 'results' get analyzed, because many if not most of the questions are politically 'spun' or simply inaccurate.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200808:53 AM
I don't know why asking a question such as which candidate dropped out of a previous election cycle due to plagiarism is somehow biased.

Nor does asking who is Bill Ayers. Or Who controls the House and Senate.

Or frankly any of the other questions.

You cant design the answers to such questions. Or Be reasonably assured of predetermining the result.

Most people who voted for Obama didn't realize Biden had been a plagiarist. Most didn't know Bill Ayers. Most had no clue as to who controlled Congress.

People either know this stuff or they don't. You can't design a poll to take into account this level of stupidity. If you didn't know what party controls Congress right now, ypu probably should not have been voting at all.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

*sigh* Yes. Yes, I do. I'm curious, Red: when did you start trusting Zogby's polling accuracy? I seem to recall, back in 2004, your calling him a dishonest idiot. Did he acquire principles when you weren't looking?

quote:People either know this stuff or they don't.

This is one of the great misunderstood topics. Not only can people sorta know this stuff, they might also be misled by -- or disagree with -- the wording of the poll in such a way that they are unable or reluctant to give the answer the poll has deemed "correct."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200809:21 AM
No actually, I investigated fully, and in responce to my questions, they sent me a ton of information. After reading it, understanding it, and even getting answers to some followup questions, I was invited to join their select phone pool and participated in phone polls from 2005-2007. I now only do internet polls for them.

How can you mislead anyone with the question

"Do you know who Nacy Pelosi is?"

"Do you know who Harry Reid is?"

"What political Party currently controls the United States Congress?"

"Do you know who Bill Ayers is?"

There isn't any "sorta know" there isn't any misleading, and the wordingis so neutral you have no idea even if there is an expected answer.

This isn't a push poll. The wording isn't misleading.

The issue is that these questions reveal something that the conservatives have kept bringing up allthrought the election cycle.

A. There was media bias against the Republicans.B. Any issues that might detract from Obama's campaign were either delayed, answered on Saturday afternoons, or turned back as being implied racism. C. Many people who voted for him could not identify a single policy of Obama except "Change"D. Obama was so unvetted by the majority of the media, that as a result this election came down to an image contest. Obama is a hip black guy, with two quite kids, a wife who looks hot, and he smokes & drinks and thinks the BCS is a crock of ****. McCain looks old, looks scarry, tells it like it is, pisses off powerful people, reminds us we are in a war, reminds us that we have to seriously start using our own energy resources, and tells us that the economy is fundamentally solid but we are going to be hurting for a few years.

Who did the thinking person vote for in general? McCain.

Who did the readers of US Weekly in general vote for- since they out number thinking people by far? Obama.

There are more idiots in the world than smart people. And of the smart people, lots of them don't use what grey matter they have.

Seeing Obama elected has convinced me that only two things matter anymore. Good looks & a really good press secretary.

You can win the highest office in the land with just those two things going for you.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote: There are more idiots in the world than smart people. And of the smart people, lots of them don't use what grey matter they have.

One interpretation of this statement is that Obama got the "stupid" vote, and those who are intelligent and voted for Obama failed to use their higher cognitive functions. Is this what you are saying, Red?
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200811:43 AM
Doesn't the Democratic Party always try to register and turn out to vote all the people on the periphery of society, who tend to be less informed and discriminating than other voters? Don't pundits agree that usually, the higher the turnout on election day, the more that tends to favor the Democrats? Why should that be?
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200812:11 PM
I find all of your points to be unconvincing assertions

A. There was media bias against the Republicans.(I believe that the media is not motivated by political bias as much as the search for ratings. I believe that more unsubstantiated negative material was broadcast about Democrats than Republicans. And I believe that Sen. Obama wound up running a much more effective campaign than Sen. McCain, and if the media actually reports on the performance of the candidates, then that would be the basis for some more positive stories for Obama vs. mcCain)

B. Any issues that might detract from Obama's campaign were either delayed, answered on Saturday afternoons, or turned back as being implied racism.(Seriously? You think that no issues were raised by the media on Tuesdays or Wednesdays? Not "bittergate" of the advisor who said some angry things about the Clinton campaign and was let go? Because all the reporters would choose to lose a scoop that would help their professional career instead of doing anything that might detract from the Obama campaign?)

C. Many people who voted for him could not identify a single policy of Obama except "Change"(Nice phrasing, that. Many people who voted for John McCain were mentally ill. That's also factually true (and the same goes for those who voted for Barack Obama - when you have ~60 million votes, there will be "many" people of every type who voted for each candidate. Are you trying to make an assertion that those who voted for Barack Obama made a less informed choice than those who voted for McCain, or those who voted for previous Presidential candidates? If so, make that case and show your data).

D. Obama was so unvetted by the majority of the media, that as a result this election came down to an image contest. Obama is a hip black guy, with two quite kids, a wife who looks hot, and he smokes & drinks and thinks the BCS is a crock of ****. McCain looks old, looks scarry, tells it like it is, pisses off powerful people, reminds us we are in a war, reminds us that we have to seriously start using our own energy resources, and tells us that the economy is fundamentally solid but we are going to be hurting for a few years.(Assertions, assertions. Do voters choose based on image? If some of them do, is that a function of your hypothesized "lack of vetting" by the media? I seem to remember in the 2000 campaign a great deal of emphasis on Al Gore sighing, and assertions on the media that George W. Bush would be the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with. 1988 was also an election where the candidate attempting to run a campaign based on issues got clobbered by a campaign that focused on image. All of which counters your assertion that it was a lack of media vetting that made 2008 about image.)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote: Doesn't the Democratic Party always try to register and turn out to vote all the people on the periphery of society, who tend to be less informed and discriminating than other voters? Don't pundits agree that usually, the higher the turnout on election day, the more that tends to favor the Democrats? Why should that be?

As to A. If the New York Time and Washington Post Ombudsmen findings after the election that their papers were both overwhelmingly pro Obama and pro Democrat to an embarrassing level even by their standards, nothing I can or could show you would convince you otherwise. The fact is that by independent study and standards, as well as self admission by leading media outlets, they were biased.

B. The work day 9-5 media interests in Obama's potential campaign flaws or miissteps were so rare, that many people in the media are talking about how brilliant the campaign's control of information release and management of any potential surprises was compared to any previous campaign. Period. The guy managed the news cycle astoundingly well. That is the opinion of the press corps- not mine.

C. The Zogby poll of post election voters is but one confirmation. And while yes there are equally idiotic voters in both camp, the Obama camp is finding itself replete with a demographic that has a person who voted for Obama who cannot identify a single plan or policy goal of Obama- instead saying their vote for Obama is because he is going to "Change" things. As this election is being dissected, that is one common theme emerging from Republican, Democrat, and Independent based observation. The voters for Obama had a heavy componet of people who voted for him regardless of any issue other than he said "Change"- including Republicans who crossed over.

In terms of logic or in terms of common sense, you do not vote for anyone if all you can base your vote on is a vague nebulous concept that has no substance to it.

D. When polled, yes voters preferred Obama's image over McCain's. They preferred his image whether in person at a rally or on a screen in their living room. They preferred the vagueness of Obama's stump speech over the specific- and often negative facts contained in McCain's stump speech. So combine this verified fact with the reality of media bias, and you get a media imaged candidate who looks great and didn't have anything resembling a vetting process. For example where was the media on Obama and drugs, cocaine and excessive drinking? They even gave Clinton and Gore a ton of trouble on that one.

Obama? to my knowledge no media investigation outside of the blogs of ill repute even attempted to figure that out.

In short, many who voted for Obama put as much consideration to the task as they do putting on a change of underwear.

A lot of McCain's voters did the exact same thing.

But as the dissection continues, we are finding on average the Obama voters thought the least about it before casting a vote.

For those of you who did vote for Obama after careful investigation and personal consideration this obviously cannot include you. But it should cause you to reconsider the wisdom of your choice, because increasingly it is becoming apparent that most of the Obama voters who joined you didn't think about it at all.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote: For example where was the media on Obama and drugs, cocaine and excessive drinking? They even gave Clinton and Gore a ton of trouble on that one.

I believe that Bush got a pass for being a blow monkey. Clinton got nailed on it, not for smoking pot, but for responding by saying he didn't inhale. That line of logic came back to haunt him a few years later.

I do find it hilarious that people on the right are no longer touting the wisdom of the American people, and are starting to act like the smug elitists they accused liberals of being the past eight years.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200803:45 PM
NBC's David Gregory: "But Senator, you have not demonstrated that you can decisively put the nomination away. You have also not demonstrated that you can win some of the big states that'll be important in the general election -- California, New York, Ohio." Obama: "Well, David, we've won Michigan and Georgia and Illinois and Missouri."

Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot for Michigan maybe he was referring to one of the 57 states he'd visited earlier. " I've now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go." No joke in that?

Possible funny scenarios:

Obama to Matt Lauer- "Yes my little girls and their new puppy will soon be settled into The Red House. Oh sorry Tim, I...I mean Matt, I meant White House. Don't you worry people of Sunshine..er Sunrise, FL, and you wonderful supporters in Grand Rapid ...er I mean Rapid City, and of course the great citizens of Sioux City no...no Sioux Falls, SD...well you know what I meant. I do know where I am and where I'm going. I may not know which war my Daddy fought in, but I definately know I'm going to the Red House...er White House."

Obama on his future plans for travel might say, "Well, as I travel to Brazil...er I mean Peru I will be using interpreters who speak Peruvian."

(Of note, when you Google Grand Rapid gaffe you will find that Sarah Palin made a similar gaffe and there are many more references to her gaffe than there are to Obama's. I don't think Palin made herself look any less silly than Obama, but who got most of the negative coverage?)
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:I do find it hilarious that people on the right are no longer touting the wisdom of the American people, and are starting to act like the smug elitists they accused liberals of being the past eight years.

Red is saying the press played a pivotal role in making sure the electorate was unwise in their vote, either Rep or Dem. This from the Charlie Rose Show:

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: You know that's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches, two of them.

BROKAW: I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

They were free to admit that after the election. Did you hear anyone say such a thing during the campaign? Of course not, because they would have been admitting they were not doing their jobs.

And the idea that the press wouldn't consider political expediency above the bottom line or their reporters "ethics" is rediculous in the face of the evidence. Consider how the ratings for all the Big 3 news hours have been plummiting for some time and newspapers across the nation are going bankrupt. Rush, Hannity, Engles et al are raking in the dough. If the Big 3 and the newsmills were only interested in making money they'd be following the mode that is making money, not losing it.

If the news industry truly had any "ethics" left, Dan Rathers took them with him when he left town.
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote: A. The fact is that by independent study and standards, as well as self admission by leading media outlets, they were biased.

Show me a valid study.

quote:B The guy managed the news cycle astoundingly well.

Oh, this was a compliment from you for the competence of the Obama campaign. My mistake, I had thought it was a criticism.

quote: C. the Obama camp is finding itself replete with a demographic that has a person who voted for Obama who cannot identify a single plan or policy goal of Obama

Wonderful word, "replete". Does that mean that you don't know how many or what percentage it is, but because they voted for the guy that you opposed it has to be a historically unprecedented amount? As I said in my original post, these are assertions without any substantiation. You have a free speech right to make them, but you're not convincing anyone except those who can agree with you without the need for proof.

quote: D. where was the media on Obama and drugs, cocaine and excessive drinking? They even gave Clinton and Gore a ton of trouble on that one.

I think the media was in the same place they were with respect to Sen. McCain's past personal life which I would argue was objectively worse by the standards previously raised by Social Conservatives than either Sen. Obama or Bill Clinton. And that got negligible air time.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Greg Davidson:[QB] A. There was media bias against the Republicans.(I believe that the media is not motivated by political bias as much as the search for ratings.

Are you serious? If the ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYPost, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.. were concerned only about ratings than they would practice responsible journalism and would stop being mouth pieces for the DNC.

The ratings of these 'news' organizations are in the dumb and have been for years. Every mainstream paper in the nation (except for the Wall Street Journal) have been making major cuts to staff, divisions, services ect.. These companies are dying and they are dying because half of America is sick and tired of their biases. While these mainstream media outlets are loosing viewers by the day, alternative media is increasing viewership at record numbers.

If they were only concerned about ratings than you would think they would be copying Fox's example and provide some conservative commentary or allow anchors on the air who arent spokespeople for Obama. Your comment simply doesnt match reality.

I would love to argue the point that Fox News is very balanced (they provide equal time to conservatives and democrats) but lets assume the leftwing mantra is accurate and Fox news is conservative. Fox News is destroying the ratings of the mainstream news. If your analysis is correct than other news organizations would start to allow more conservative views to be heard -- but the fact is that THEY DON'T. Its a ridiculous assumption that you have made.
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

LOL,, Brokaw,, If you dont know anything about him than what have you been doing for the past 12 months? Its your job to learn about him and REPORT IT. Unbelievable. This statement alone confirms Zigler's analysis - The mainstream media is participating in MEDIA MALPRACTICE absolutely Orwellian.
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |

The study where the coverage of Obama to McCain where McCain was a victim of 80% negative coverag and Obama was the benefactor of 80% positive coverage. And in terms of numbers of stories and time coverd Obama was *05 of the time and McCain was 20%.

I am sure you knew about this because we coverd it on Ornery.

The Ombudsmen for the NYT and Washington Post got covered too.

Or read the Rose snippet provided by cb.

You cannot be serious and with a straight face somehow maintain Obama was not insanely benefited by the type, quantity, and lack of depth to the media coverage he was gifted with. Or for that matter even seriously demand any proof after it has been all over the post election newspapers, radio, broadcast news, cable news and internet.

McCain's life was washed over by the press for a second time. But after four years, no one was still interested except for that fringe right wing pinhead consortium that thinks any divorce is evidence of adultery. The press didn't cover McCain's personal life that extensively because A> it had been done to death four years ago, and B. if Democrats are not being hypocritical of the standards they apply to their leaders, McCain's personal life was never an issue.

By social conservative standards, McCain is more in hot water for the fact his wife is associated with alcohol, than they are over his divorce. Bush got blasted for rumored coke and multiple dui's, Clinton got it for smoking and not inhaling, Obama got an outright pass.

Pinochio makes a very valid point.

Fox is slaughtering the other cable outlets combined, every night. Apparently having people from opposing sides get interviewed on issues at the same time is a ratings bonanza. Apparently having a mixed pool of reporters and hosts that hold very different political views serves as an anchor in editorial terms that lets you be fair.

I agree with Ted Turner, the media in general has fallen far left wing, and I regret he did the AOL Time Warner merger because I also agree that it was the death knell for CNN as a respectible news agency.

Sorry but it really was Orwellian how so many people fell for the hype and image of Obama.

quote: Are you serious? If the ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYPost, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.. were concerned only about ratings than they would practice responsible journalism and would stop being mouth pieces for the DNC.

As I said, you are allowed to express any opinion that you would like, and you may even find like-minded people who will believe what you say without the need for things like substantiation. You can say it twice, you can say it using more colorful language, you can shout at me or others, but you are not very convincing at the moment.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote: The study where the coverage of Obama to McCain where McCain was a victim of 80% negative coverag and Obama was the benefactor of 80% positive coverage

The "victim" of negative coverage - that's an interesting word, and it presupposes that negative coverage was intentionally used as an attack. Over what span of time did this study make comparisons, what was the source of the information, and how did they account for the fact that there may have been relatively more bad news about Sen. McCain because his campaign was not as well run as the campaign of Sen. Obama? And then, if you find some variation, how does that compare to the variations in coverage between Bush-Kerry, Bush-Gore, Clinton-Dole, Clinton-Bush, and Bush-Dukakis? There are several alternative hypotheses to address as well, such as perhaps the media just chases shallow issues likely to make dramatic television, which is a weakness but not indication of a particular bias towards the DNC.

This thread is based on an assertion that Sen Obama was elected due to media bias. Make the case.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

flydye45
unregistered

posted November 23, 200806:39 PM

quote:Originally posted by Greg Davidson: Oh, this was a compliment from you for the competence of the Obama campaign. My mistake, I had thought it was a criticism. ...I think the media was in the same place they were with respect to Sen. McCain's past personal life which I would argue was objectively worse by the standards previously raised by Social Conservatives than either Sen. Obama or Bill Clinton. And that got negligible air time.

It's funny. I recall the campaigns of Bush the Second which were also very leak free and well run. How exactly was that characterized again? Rovian! Secretive! Lack of Transparency!

Meanwhile, I recall the MSM slamming Cindy McCain for her long ago drug addiction right before one of the debates, which is wretched hypocrisy on their part.
IP: Logged |

quote: Are you serious? If the ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYPost, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.. were concerned only about ratings than they would practice responsible journalism and would stop being mouth pieces for the DNC.

As I said, you are allowed to express any opinion that you would like, and you may even find like-minded people who will believe what you say without the need for things like substantiation. You can say it twice, you can say it using more colorful language, you can shout at me or others, but you are not very convincing at the moment.

What does that have to do with the fact that 'if networks only cared about ratings, they would start appealing to a broader audience'? I'm not sure what you mean.
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |

"By Deborah HowellSunday, November 9, 2008; Page B06The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

I suggest you follow LR's link to the dawn of your own personal enlightenment. As I pointed out earlier nothing I can present to you will be believed by you. Instead why not investigate for yourself and see that what I pointed out is not only a fair assessment of the campaign but it is also an indication that Obama directly benefitted from his press coverage.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

posted November 23, 200807:28 PM
"Are you serious? If the ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYPost, Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.. were concerned only about ratings than they would practice responsible journalism and would stop being mouth pieces for the DNC."

posted November 23, 200808:10 PM
The Washington Post Ombudsman expressed opinions and had some data. For example:

quote: The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

This is presented as if it were a bias in favor of Obama, but it is unclear that is the case. I very strongly suspect that Sen. Obama had many more stories concerning the Rev. Wright than Sen. McCain had concerning the offensive language of that clergyman whose political endorsement McCain sought and received. Some fraction of these stories were also on how Obama can't win the votes of Hispanics, Jews, women, working class whites, etc., some focused on attacks that he was Muslim, that his birth certificate was invalid, etc. The metric of "more stories" assumes that the stories tend to be favorable (or disproportionately favorable compared to the stories about Sen. McCain).

A stronger case can be made for the op-ed page running a higher number of favorable opinion pieces for Obama.

quote: The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

This gets to a key question that is arguable: is fairness an equal number of positive and negative stories for each candidate regardless of what they do? If you do say that is the standard by which you want to judge the media, then your case has stronger logical foundations. In fact, the editorial page endorsement of Obama and the op-ed column statistics do indicate that those two pages of the newspaper favored Obama. But in the past, editorial pages and op-eds have almost never come out exactly in balance, and so is your assertion that whenever those don't come out equally to both candidates it demonstrates unfair political bias?

If you will allow that differences between candidates can be a justification for difference in Editorial and op-ed coverage, then you have to prove that Sen. Obama was no better a candidate than Sen. McCain in order to demonstrate bias.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

Bernard Goldberg has written volumes on this subject as both a democrat and as an insider his analysis is very persuasive and factually accurate. How I or anyone else feel about this topic really doesnt matter unless you have a knowledge base to base your opinions on. Unless you have read these volumes which document the bias which most conservative easily see, its hard to have an educated opinion. Once you finish Goldberg's reports there are several others I could point you to.

I cant imagine that you have read any of these reports if you still cant see that the mainstream media has a very liberal 'template' from which they report the news.

posted November 23, 200808:24 PM
So now that you have scratched the surface you will continue? The op-ed and eventual endorsements are a good starting oint. Did those papers and news magazines that endorsed a candidate exhibit a bias on the back fold that translated into their news coverage?

It appears that in the case of the Wp and NYT it did. Answering your question for you.

Incidentally my two local papers also cme out with ombudsmen reports. Both endorsed Obama. Both had favorable coverage ratios similar to the NYT and WP. Both had similar negative story coverage. No one expects two candidates to be equally positive and negative in terms of news and editorializing. But when the editorial favoritism of exposure reaches a 2 to 1 against the other candidate, maybe the issue of fairness should come into play.

As to Obama not being a better qualified individual, he has essentially no record or even comparable experience to McCain's. That should be your first clue something is rotten in Denmark.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |